POLL: The Deity of Christ

[Elin]

I'm sorry. I think I directed you to the wrong post I covered this on an earlier post.

We find two different words used in the NT that are translated as "begotten" in connection to Jesus. The first word we find in John 1:14 which is μονογενοῦς and according to HELPS word studies means "one-and-only" and /génos, "offspring, stock") – properly, one-and-only; "one of a kind" – literally, "one (monos) of a class, genos" (the only of its kind). This establishes the uniqueness of his nature in contrast to that of man.

The other word is γεγέννηκά which we find in Acts 13:33 and Hebrews 1:5.
This word is a metaphor meaning to engender, to cause to rise (resurrection - from ἀνάστασις meaning to stand again).

There are two "risings" in Ac 13:33-35.

In Ac 13:33, "raise up" is used as it is in 13:22 of David, and used in 3:22, 7:37 of Christ as a prophet--elevating a person to occupy a special position in the nation.

In v. 34, where Christ "raised up" from the dead is stressed, it is his resurrection.

Ac 13:33 is speaking of the incarnation, the birth of Christ,
it is vv. 34-35 that are speaking of the resurrection, and γεγέννηκά is not used there.

And in Heb 1:5-6 there are two "comings."

The first coming--incarnation, birth of Christ in v. 5, as shown in Ac 13:33,
and "again" (v.6)--the second coming when God brings the firstborn into the world,
and also where γεγέννηκά is not used in v.6.

So the γεγέννηκά of Ac 13:33 and Heb 1:5 can be shown to be referring to the birth of Christ,
rather than to his resurrection.

So that Ro 1:4 is referring to proof by the power of the resurrection that Jesus is the Son of God.

He is the first one of a now order of creatures - sons of God.

We will have to look to "firstborn" (Heb 1:6), rather than to "begotten," to explain
that "Son of God" is the first of a whole race.

 

[Elin]

Disposing of Elin's red-herring first ....
if the Messiah was to be born in the tribe of Judah "according to the flesh" but you reckon Joseph was not his earthly father,
then surely Joseph's lineage is totally irrelevant.

Not according God's reckoning of genealogy.

In which case one wonders why whoever wrote Matthew (nobody knows for sure) even included that lineage.

Unless ... the mystery writer believed that Joseph was Yeshua's father because the whole Virgin Birth story was not invented until long after he wrote his version ?
(Well, to make Yeshua a god, they had to give him this virgin-born status to compete with all the other man-gods of the day.)

I will address the issue of Mary's tribe in my next post.

You are ignorant in the matters you discuss.

 

[Elin]

To the contrary Elin:
Jesus is both reality and truth. Reality is truth, and truth is reality.

Previously addressed. . .

 

[Elin]

Creation is the beginning of earths time-not the beginning of Gods existence. .

Agreed. . .

 

[Elin]

No God does not want glory from the head, but the heart.

And yet God made the head and its functions (1Co 10:31). . .

Scriptural basis?

 

[oldhermit]

There are two "risings" in Ac 13:33-35.

In Ac 13:33, "raise up" is used as it is in 13:22 of David, and used in 3:22, 7:37 of Christ as a prophet--elevating a person to occupy a special position in the nation.

In v. 34, where Christ "raised up" from the dead is stressed, it is his resurrection.

Ac 13:33 is speaking of the incarnation, the birth of Christ,
it is vv. 34-35 that are speaking of the resurrection, and γεγέννηκά is not used there.

And in Heb 1:5-6 there are two "comings."

The first coming--incarnation, birth of Christ in v. 5, as shown in Ac 13:33,
and "again" (v.6)--the second coming when God brings the firstborn into the world,
and also where γεγέννηκά is not used in v.6.

So the γεγέννηκά of Ac 13:33 and Heb 1:5 can be shown to be referring to the birth of Christ,
rather than to his resurrection.

So that Ro 1:4 is referring to proof by the power of the resurrection that Jesus is the Son of God.


We will have to look to "firstborn" (Heb 1:6), rather than to "begotten," to explain
that "Son of God" is the first of a whole race.

You are trying to separate 13:33-35 into two separate events but Paul links them to a single event - the resurrection of Christ which is represented in the word γεγέννηκά. "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; Today, I have begotten (γεγέννηκά)YOU.’" This is time bound as is designated by the word TODAY. This speaks of fulfillment of promise linked to a specific point in linear time - the resurrection.

μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά are both translated as begotten and are refer to two different aspects of relationship. The difference between the two words as they are used in regard to Jesus is that μονογενοῦς reflects the relationship between Jesus and the Father and is most certainly used in connection to the incarnation. He is the one of a kind - the only one who comes from the Father - the "only begotten of the Father."
γεγέννηκά on the other hand, reflects Jesus' relationship to the redeemed of man. He is the first in a new order of society - sons of God and this is the word used in connection to God's declaration "YOU ARE MY SON; Today, I have begotten (γεγέννηκά) YOU.’"

The power mentioned in Rom 1:4 is demonstrated in the fact that the H.S raised him from the dead. The resurrection itself is the demonstration of power.

πρωτότοκος is the word for first born and can certainly be used in connection to both the incarnation and the resurrection.

 

[purgedconscience]

You are trying to separate 13:33-35 into two separate events but Paul links them to a single event - the resurrection of Christ which is represented in the word γεγέννηκά. "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; Today, I have begotten (γεγέννηκά)YOU.’" This is time bound as is designated by the word TODAY. This speaks of fulfillment of promise linked to a specific point in linear time - the resurrection.

Precisely.

 

[purgedconscience]

μονογενοῦς and γεγέννηκά are both translated as begotten and are refer to two different aspects of relationship. The difference between the two words as they are used in regard to Jesus is that μονογενοῦς reflects the relationship between Jesus and the Father and is most certainly used in connection to the incarnation. He is the one of a kind - the only one who comes from the Father - the "only begotten of the Father."

Hi oldhermit.

May I ask you a question in regard to probably the most famous Bible verse in the world? A verse which speaks of Jesus as being God's only begotten Son?

John chapter 3 verse 16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus said that we need to believe that God gave His only begotten Son in order not to perish and in order to receive everlasting life, right?

What exactly does this entail?

Was Jesus saying that we need to believe that He is a one of a kind Son like you just described above in order not to perish and in order to inherit eternal life or was He saying something completely different? In other words, is our belief in Jesus' Incarnation what is essential to salvation or is it our belief that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead which is essential and which does the Bible emphasize repeatedly?

Do you understand my question?

If so, then could you please give me your answer?

Thank you.

 

[Yonah]

Joh 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

[Elin]

You are trying to separate 13:33-35 into two separate events but Paul links them to a single event - the resurrection of Christ which is represented in the word γεγέννηκά. "God has fulfilled this promise to our children in that He raised up Jesus, as it is also written in the second Psalm, ‘YOU ARE MY SON; Today, I have begotten (γεγέννηκά)YOU.’" This is time bound as is designated by the word TODAY.
This speaks of fulfillment of promise

The promise fulfilled is Ge 22:18, the Messiah in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

linked to a specific point in linear time - the resurrection.

I think the orthodox Christian understanding, reflected in the Nicene Creed,
"begotten of the Father before all the worlds" does not agree with specifically begotten at the resurrection.

1Jn 4:9 - "God sent his only begotten Son into the world. . ."
Jesus was "begotten" before the resurrection.

Today - can refer to eternal generation: "from everlasting to everlasting" with God is one and the same eternal day, today.

Today - dependant on eternal generation, can also refer to the resurrection: "Today by the resurrection I manifested that I have begotten you (as in Paul's meaning of Ro 1:4), as well as all that are given to you," as in 1Pe 1:3, "has begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

The power of the resurrection was the proof of Christ being the Son of God (Ro 1:4),
as declared by the angel to Mary, "He. . .will be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk 1:35) and
by God at his baptism, "This is my beloved Son," plainly referring to Ps 2:7.

The resurrection was the proof, not a statement, of Sonship as from the angel and from the Father at his baptism.

The orthodox Christian understanding of the Bilbical meaning of "begotten" as eternal generation of the Son
is seen in the Nicene Creed.

 

[blondieindahouse]

YES!


John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.


Sanctify them by the truth; Your word is truth.
John 17:17

John 14:6
I am the way the truth and the life. Noone comes to the Father except by me


John 8:58
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'"

 

[purgedconscience]

The promise fulfilled is Ge 22:18, the Messiah in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

I think the orthodox Christian understanding, reflected in the Nicene Creed,
"begotten of the Father before all the worlds" does not agree with specifically begotten at the resurrection.

1Jn 4:9 - "God sent his only begotten Son into the world. . ."
Jesus was "begotten" before the resurrection.

Today - can refer to eternal generation: "from everlasting to everlasting" with God is one and the same eternal day, today.

Today - dependant on eternal generation, can also refer to the resurrection: "Today by the resurrection I manifested that I have begotten you (as in Paul's meaning of Ro 1:4), as well as all that are given to you," as in 1Pe 1:3, "has begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

The power of the resurrection was the proof of Christ being the Son of God (Ro 1:4),
as declared by the angel to Mary, "He. . .will be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk 1:35) and
by God at his baptism, "This is my beloved Son," plainly referring to Ps 2:7.

The resurrection was the proof, not a statement, of Sonship as from the angel and from the Father at his baptism.

The orthodox Christian understanding of the Bilbical meaning of "begotten" as eternal generation of the Son
is seen in the Nicene Creed.

Eternal generation is a self-refuting lie.

That which is eternal can never be generated.

The Nicene Creed, no matter how popular, is wrong in this point if we're to believe scripture and I choose to do just that.

 

[Elin]

the word TODAY. This speaks of fulfillment of promise linked to a specific point in linear time - the resurrection.

Precisely.

Perhaps you would like to answer the question I presented to you, following:

Thanks for responding, PC, but I am trying to unseat a long-held understanding of "begotten" as the OT uses "begat," and I'm not getting it.

You haven't answered my question as to the exact meaning of this "begotten,"

a statement in the form of this statement: "begat" is "to sire."

So, "begotten" is "to . . . . . . . . . . ."?

 

[Elin]

Eternal generation is a self-refuting lie.

That which is eternal can never be generated.

Okay. . .continuing, ongoing generation, never not generating the Son.

 

[oldhermit]

Hi oldhermit.

May I ask you a question in regard to probably the most famous Bible verse in the world? A verse which speaks of Jesus as being God's only begotten Son?

John chapter 3 verse 16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Jesus said that we need to believe that God gave His only begotten Son in order not to perish and in order to receive everlasting life, right?

What exactly does this entail?

Was Jesus saying that we need to believe that He is a one of a kind Son like you just described above in order not to perish and in order to inherit eternal life or was He saying something completely different? In other words, is our belief in Jesus' Incarnation what is essential to salvation or is it our belief that Jesus Christ has been raised from the dead which is essential and which does the Bible emphasize repeatedly?

Do you understand my question?

If so, then could you please give me your answer?

Thank you.

I think so, and that is a valid question. Let me use John 8:24 to answer your question. 3:16 seems to be a condensed version of 8:24

“And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (He), you will die in your sins.”
This represents a contrast of origins. “You are from below” represents a particular epistemology – a state of mind, a way of reasoning, a process of determining what is true. Their epistemology was from below and reflected the mind of the world. Jesus' epistemology was from heaven and reflected the mind of God. The 'he' is not in the Greek and the insertion of the pronoun in the English translations is, I think, both unwarranted and unfortunate. The insertion of the pronoun leads to uncalled for speculation about Jesus use of ἐγώ εἰμι. Jesus is not using ἐγώ εἰμι here as declaration of divine title as he does in verse 58. Here, ἐγώ εἰμι simply modifies his claims of the two previous clause - “I am from above...I am not of this world...and unless you believe that I am ((from above and not from this world)) you will die in your sins). Accepting Jesus' claims then of being from heaven is prerequisite tosalvation. One cannot deny Jesus' rightful place with everything this implies and be saved. Forgiveness of sin cannot be separated from the divinity of Jesus. If one does not believe he is the God of heaven there is no forgiveness of sin. This one fact gives credence to whatever comes out of his mouth. Whatever he says is the WORD OF GOD! I think this represents the most basic form of believing that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son," and this stands as the foundation of salvation. All of the other things that we discover through the process of linguistic studies simply help us to deepen our understanding and appreciation of what all is involved in these few simple words.

 

[purgedconscience]

Today - can refer to eternal generation: "from everlasting to everlasting" with God is one and the same eternal day, today.

Again, here is the clear meaning of today in relation to Christ being begotten:

Hebrews chapter 5 verses 1 thru 6

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins:
Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity.
And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins.
And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.
So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.
As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Why did the writer of this epistle to the Hebrews quote from the second Psalm in relation to Christ's Priesthood?

He did so because the Levitical priesthood ended and Christ's Priesthood began on the day in which Christ was begotten or raised from the dead.

Hebrews chapter 7 verses 11 and 12

If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.

Again, when did the priesthood change?

It changed on the day in which Christ was begotten or raised from the dead.

 

[Elin]

I think so, and that is a valid question. Let me use John 8:24 to answer your question. 3:16 seems to be a condensed version of 8:24

“And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (He), you will die in your sins.”
This represents a contrast of origins. “You are from below” represents a particular epistemology – a state of mind, a way of reasoning, a process of determining what is true. Their epistemology was from below and reflected the mind of the world. Jesus' epistemology was from heaven and reflected the mind of God. The 'he' is not in the Greek and the insertion of the pronoun in the English translations is, I think, both unwarranted and unfortunate. The insertion of the pronoun leads to uncalled for speculation about Jesus use of ἐγώ εἰμι. Jesus is not using ἐγώ εἰμι here as declaration of divine title as he does in verse 58. Here, ἐγώ εἰμι simply modifies his claims of the two previous clause - “I am from above...I am not of this world...and unless you believe that I am ((from above and not from this world)) you will die in your sins). Accepting Jesus' claims then of being from heaven is prerequisite tosalvation. One cannot deny Jesus' rightful place with everything this implies and be saved. Forgiveness of sin cannot be separated from the divinity of Jesus. If one does not believe he is the God of heaven there is no forgiveness of sin.

That is some serious consequences for those who deny the deity of Christ.

This one fact gives credence to whatever comes out of his mouth. Whatever he says is the WORD OF GOD!

I think this represents the most basic form of believing that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son," and this stands as the foundation of salvation. All of the other things that we discover through the process of linguistic studies simply help us to deepen our understanding and appreciation of what all is involved in these few simple words.

 

[oldhermit]

The promise fulfilled is Ge 22:18, the Messiah in whom all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

I think the orthodox Christian understanding, reflected in the Nicene Creed,
"begotten of the Father before all the worlds" does not agree with specifically begotten at the resurrection.

1Jn 4:9 - "God sent his only begotten Son into the world. . ."
Jesus was "begotten" before the resurrection.

Today - can refer to eternal generation: "from everlasting to everlasting" with God is one and the same eternal day, today.

Today - dependant on eternal generation, can also refer to the resurrection: "Today by the resurrection I manifested that I have begotten you (as in Paul's meaning of Ro 1:4), as well as all that are given to you," as in 1Pe 1:3, "has begotten us again to a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."

The power of the resurrection was the proof of Christ being the Son of God (Ro 1:4),
as declared by the angel to Mary, "He. . .will be called the Son of the Most High" (Lk 1:35) and
by God at his baptism, "This is my beloved Son," plainly referring to Ps 2:7.

The resurrection was the proof, not a statement, of Sonship as from the angel and from the Father at his baptism.

The orthodox Christian understanding of the Bilbical meaning of "begotten" as eternal generation of the Son
is seen in the Nicene Creed.

You are trying to over-think this and you are making this harder than it is. Paul gives a divine interpretation of that passage and I really do not know how much clearer I can make it. We cannot just link any definition or concept to the language of scripture that we want to. Meaning is supplied by the text itself and words are assigned meaning by their use in that text.Go back and re-read what I said about the Paul's application of "today."

 

[purgedconscience]

I think so, and that is a valid question. Let me use John 8:24 to answer your question. 3:16 seems to be a condensed version of 8:24

“And He was saying to them, “You are from below, I am from above; you are of this world, I am not of this world. “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am (He), you will die in your sins.”
This represents a contrast of origins. “You are from below” represents a particular epistemology – a state of mind, a way of reasoning, a process of determining what is true. Their epistemology was from below and reflected the mind of the world. Jesus' epistemology was from heaven and reflected the mind of God. The 'he' is not in the Greek and the insertion of the pronoun in the English translations is, I think, both unwarranted and unfortunate. The insertion of the pronoun leads to uncalled for speculation about Jesus use of ἐγώ εἰμι. Jesus is not using ἐγώ εἰμι here as declaration of divine title as he does in verse 58. Here, ἐγώ εἰμι simply modifies his claims of the two previous clause - “I am from above...I am not of this world...and unless you believe that I am ((from above and not from this world)) you will die in your sins). Accepting Jesus' claims then of being from heaven is prerequisite tosalvation. One cannot deny Jesus' rightful place with everything this implies and be saved. Forgiveness of sin cannot be separated from the divinity of Jesus. If one does not believe he is the God of heaven there is no forgiveness of sin. This one fact gives credence to whatever comes out of his mouth. Whatever he says is the WORD OF GOD! I think this represents the most basic form of believing that "God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son," and this stands as the foundation of salvation. All of the other things that we discover through the process of linguistic studies simply help us to deepen our understanding and appreciation of what all is involved in these few simple words.

Hi oldhermit and thanks for your reply.

I pretty much expected that you would say that, although I had no idea which verses you would cite, and I'll readily admit that a belief in Christ's origins or a belief that He descended from heaven are essential in giving credence to His Words, but is such a belief salvific? In other words, if somebody merely believes in Christ's Divine origin, then are they saved? In my understanding of scripture, the answer to this question is no. A belief in Christ's resurrection is essential to salvation. Without it, there is no salvation. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[oldhermit]

Hi oldhermit and thanks for your reply.

I pretty much expected that you would say that, although I had no idea which verses you would cite, and I'll readily admit that a belief in Christ's origins or a belief that He descended from heaven are essential in giving credence to His Words, but is such a belief salvific? In other words, if somebody merely believes in Christ's Divine origin, then are they saved? In my understanding of scripture, the answer to this question is no. A belief in Christ's resurrection is essential to salvation. Without it, there is no salvation. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree 100% with everything you said. Belief in scripture is never a simple mental ascent to a fact - any fact. Belief is always represent under both covenants as a behavior that reflects one submission to whatever comes out of the mouth of God. This is certainly how the Hebrew writer represents faith/belief in chapter 11.